Compare a funding, uplift or common-fund agreement to the current rules
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- Extract fees, success, control, termination and recovery terms into a table against the funding or contingency rules the lawyer has named.
- What the lawyer must review
- Decide entitlement and permissibility yourself
- Do not let the tool compute or structure a fund
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Potential support includes extracting and organising information. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worksheet comparing a draft bill with the costs disclosure | Checklist | AI use Yellow | Internal worksheet that sets a draft bill beside the last costs estimate, later updates, uplift and AI-assisted time, before the bill is sent. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.